Greetings again Apple7,
If you acknowledge that TWO different words are in view, then what is your rational for having them mean the same thing?
I am not sure what two words you are referring to. If you are referring to “ha-Elohim” and “Elohim” as two different words, then I cannot agree with you as it is the same word “Elohim”. If you are referring to the normal word for Judge and the use of Elohim for the Judges that represented God in Exodus 21:6 and Exodus 22:8-9, then this is governed by the context and gives a range of meaning to the Hebrew language.
To illustrate, we have a Governor-General in Australia. If we say the Governor-General got into his car, then we understand that it is only referring to the individual. But if we say the Crown dismissed PM Gough Whitlam, then we think of the Governor-General acting in his role as the Queen’s representative, but it was the Governor-General John Kerr that did the actual dismissing. We do not know to this day if he consulted the Queen.
We have already covered this time and again.
The author of Hebrews used the LXX as the reference.
The writer to the Hebrews is endorsing the translation “Angels”, whether or not the same is contained in the LXX. Unfortunately for you your interpretation disagreed with both the LXX and the translation provided by the writer to the Hebrews. The LXX translation as a whole is not inspired as it has many errors, but the letter to the Hebrews and Hebrews 2:7 is inspired.
Christ and the Apostles were very careful of what they quoted and the following list of headings of where Isaiah is quoted in the NT, taken from Barnes’ Notes in his introduction to Isaiah, show that they were very selective and did not fully or always endorse our Hebrew text or the LXX:
“I. Quotations agreeing exactly with the Hebrew text:
II. Quotations nearly agreeing with the Hebrew text:
III. Quotations agreeing with the Hebrew in sense, but not in words:
IV. Quotations which give the general sense, but which abridge, or add to it:
V. Quotations which are taken from several different places:
VI. Quotations differing from the Hebrew text, but agreeing with the Septuagint text:
VII. Quotations in which there is reason to suspect a different reading in the Hebrew text, or that the words were understood in a sense different from that expressed in our Lexicons:
VIII. Allusion to a passage in Isaiah:
IX. Quotations made from the Septuagint: Many of the passages above referred to are made also from the Septuagint, when that version agrees with the Hebrew. I refer here to a few passages which have not been noted before. The apostles wrote in the Greek language and for the use of those among whom the Septuagint was extensively used. Occasionally, however, they quoted directly from the Hebrew, that is, made a translation themselves, or quoted according to the general sense. All the quotations that are in accordance with the Septuagint, or that vary from it, may be seen in Horne's Introduction, vol. ii. pp. 387, 428.
X. Quotations which differ from the Hebrew, and the Septuagint, and which were perhaps taken from some version or paraphrase, or which were so rendered by the sacred writers themselves: ”
John 10 does nothing to support your worldview,
Nice dismissive comment, but not much substance. I am very content with my understanding of John 10:30-36 that Jesus is the Son of God. I need to consider the full implications of Jesus being sanctified and sent, but this teaches and agrees with the belief of Jesus as the Son of God and not the Trinity. I have not found another reasonable explanation of the teaching of John 10:30-36.
Kind regards
Trevor
